Tech along will of course not save us. We also need real and robust international cooperation. Not bloody likely at this level of extreme inequality. So interesting to see this amazing *international* study of support of various redistributionist strategies. See www.nature.com/articles/s41...

Indeed. Though the truth is that the tech revolution, crucial though it may be, is not enough. We also need cooperation, and it is impossible at this level of inequality.

Check this out. High quality international polling on various redistributionist strategies, from Nature Human Behavior:

Read Wen Stephenson’s (‪@learning2live.bsky.social‬) Learning to Live in the Dark. Lots of us have intermittently ruminated on the climate catastrophe, and its meaning, but Wen has done so with sustained attention, and fruitfully. His thoughts are useful, and sometimes even consoling.

Did you love Robinson's Ministry for the Future but think it was maybe a wee bit too optimistic? What about Markley's great The Deluge? Did you think *it* was too optimistic? If so, you had best read Tim Winton's Juice. It's the climate future, and there are scores to be settled. Great book.

Let's call this good news -- climateanalytics.org/comment/reac... -- this in the precise sense that *very rapid action* could still bring us in under 1.5C. Like so:

The great remaining uncertainty -- clouds -- may finally be getting sorted out. The news, though unsurprising, does not seem to be good.

See www.washingtonpost.com/climate-envi...

Also . . .

Here, to welcome you into the year and the future, is and absolutely terrifying aerial photo of the LA fire.

I'm not always a fan of Fiona Harvey's analysis, though she gets a lot right. Like this . . . $COP29

# COP29. Fiona Harvey says it would have helped if the US had just told the truth. I mean, I can't really disagree, but . . .